What the infamous Health Care bill IS and ISN'T
-
thrakazog wrote:
They do the same for Social Security and look at what a well funded money saver that is. Cut benefits, add taxes, still underfunded.
Social security was flawed from the start, because it operated under the assumption that people wouldn't live more than X years after the retirement age. Advances in medicine killed it.
thrakazog wrote:
Medicare, Medicade, the Post Office.. If it's government run, expect it to hemorrhage money.
Medicare and Medicaid, sure... But the USPS is actually a company that operates under some amount of government control, but takes ZERO money from the government. It's entirely self-sustaining through postage stamps and shipping fees.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Medicare and Medicaid, sure... But the USPS is actually a company that operates under some amount of government control, but takes ZERO money from the government. It's entirely self-sustaining through postage stamps and shipping fees.
Which has mostly taken a hit from Email if I remember correctly. Funny thing about government programs, they are never future proof.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Medicare and Medicaid, sure... But the USPS is actually a company that operates under some amount of government control, but takes ZERO money from the government. It's entirely self-sustaining through postage stamps and shipping fees.
Which has mostly taken a hit from Email if I remember correctly. Funny thing about government programs, they are never future proof.
Distind wrote:
Funny thing about government programs, they are never future proof.
Is anything? Time changes everything... That which doesn't adapt, fails.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Distind wrote:
Funny thing about government programs, they are never future proof.
Is anything? Time changes everything... That which doesn't adapt, fails.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Well, they claim that it will... If you look at the details, it's actually cutting costs and adding taxes on the wealthy at the same time, so maybe it'll work.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Cutting medicare costs "next year" has been part of how the last few healthcare boondoggles have had their costs grossly understated. Congress never actually follows through because AARP is the one organization that might actually be able to achieve a full scale incumbent purge if they wanted to.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
Well, they claim that it will... If you look at the details, it's actually cutting costs and adding taxes on the wealthy at the same time, so maybe it'll work.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Well, they claim that it will... If you look at the details, it's actually cutting costs and adding taxes on the wealthy at the same time, so maybe it'll work.
So if the dems claim it, you believe it? If the reps claim it, it is mindless rhetoric? I'm supposed to believe this is a neutral evaluation?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ok, but the point is that it's not taxpayer-funded :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Ok, but the point is that it's not taxpayer-funded
You should have read the article: FTA: Yet the Postal Service is not directly funded by the federal government: although the government puts caps on the postage that it can charge, the USPS is expected to pay for itself. While it is allowed to borrow up to $15 billion from the U.S. Treasury to help it through difficult times, it is currently running a tab of $10 billion and may borrow another $3 billion this year. But this ad hoc funding system, disturbingly similar to the old method used to fund Amtrak, is a stopgap, and doesn't allow the Postal Service to engage in long-term planning. See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/cTBEHY Just like the bank bail out is not funded by the taxpayer, when the banks pay it back?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Distind wrote:
Funny thing about government programs, they are never future proof.
Is anything? Time changes everything... That which doesn't adapt, fails.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Is anything? Time changes everything... That which doesn't adapt, fails.
If a business doesn't plan accurately for the future, they go out of business. The government almost never does, and just sucks more money from the taxpayers. It may well fail the country.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Well, they claim that it will... If you look at the details, it's actually cutting costs and adding taxes on the wealthy at the same time, so maybe it'll work.
So if the dems claim it, you believe it? If the reps claim it, it is mindless rhetoric? I'm supposed to believe this is a neutral evaluation?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
What have the reps claimed that I've called "mindless rhetoric?" I'm looking at what the bill does, and giving my own estimation of whether it seems plausible. I don't care which party says what.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Ok, but the point is that it's not taxpayer-funded
You should have read the article: FTA: Yet the Postal Service is not directly funded by the federal government: although the government puts caps on the postage that it can charge, the USPS is expected to pay for itself. While it is allowed to borrow up to $15 billion from the U.S. Treasury to help it through difficult times, it is currently running a tab of $10 billion and may borrow another $3 billion this year. But this ad hoc funding system, disturbingly similar to the old method used to fund Amtrak, is a stopgap, and doesn't allow the Postal Service to engage in long-term planning. See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/cTBEHY Just like the bank bail out is not funded by the taxpayer, when the banks pay it back?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Ok, normally it's not taxpayer funded... It's currently borrowing money from the government because e-mail is killing it... The point is that there isn't some line item in the federal budget that says "We're spending $X of taxpayer money a year on the postal service."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Is anything? Time changes everything... That which doesn't adapt, fails.
If a business doesn't plan accurately for the future, they go out of business. The government almost never does, and just sucks more money from the taxpayers. It may well fail the country.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Quite possibly.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
What have the reps claimed that I've called "mindless rhetoric?" I'm looking at what the bill does, and giving my own estimation of whether it seems plausible. I don't care which party says what.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)You don't know what the bill does until you read all 2,700 pages of it.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
You don't know what the bill does until you read all 2,700 pages of it.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
So you admit you know nothing about it? :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
I know that it forces everyone to buy insurance and raises taxes.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
I know that it forces everyone to buy insurance and raises taxes.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You don't know what the bill does until you read all 2,700 pages of it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I know that it forces everyone to buy insurance and raises taxes.
I'm forced to conclude you've read all 2,700 pages :laugh: :rolleyes:
Steve
-
I know that it forces everyone to buy insurance and raises taxes.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
Yes, the bill falls a long way short of socialised health care. Forcing people to buy insurance plainly cannot cause taxes to rise. Given how you struggle to understand a basic paragraph here, I have no doubt if you've read 2700 pages of a bill, you understood perhaps 27 words of it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Yes, the bill falls a long way short of socialised health care. Forcing people to buy insurance plainly cannot cause taxes to rise. Given how you struggle to understand a basic paragraph here, I have no doubt if you've read 2700 pages of a bill, you understood perhaps 27 words of it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
No, CSS is technically right. It forces MOST people to buy insurance, and it raises taxes on the wealthy (And on tanning salons). Of course, I said all of this in the original post on this thread, so I dunno what he's arguing about.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Well, they claim that it will... If you look at the details, it's actually cutting costs and adding taxes on the wealthy at the same time, so maybe it'll work.
So if the dems claim it, you believe it? If the reps claim it, it is mindless rhetoric? I'm supposed to believe this is a neutral evaluation?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ok, since this is the big topic lately... A semi-quick summary, particularly to those of you non-USians who may have gotten the wrong impression from all of the mindless rhetoric. (Paraphrased from: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html[^]) * It is NOT government-run insurance. It adds more regulation to private insurers, but the so-called "public option" is NOT included. * Most people will NOT see a tax increase. The extra money not provided by medicare/medicaid changes will come from applying the medicare tax to investment income (Currently it only applies to normal income) for people making in excess of $200k/year ($250k for families), and starting in 2018, the high-end insurance plans will gain a significant tax... They're also adding a 10% tax on tanning salons, which seems kind of odd. * Premiums are supposed to be reduced... They're adding "exchanges" where small businesses and individuals can more easily purchase insurance... I guess it'll increase competition among insurers, by easing comparison. Note that these will be managed by each state, not centralized federally. This is the free market at work, folks. * Subsidies will be provided to people/families below 400% of the poverty level who do not have access to an employer's health plan and are not already eligible for Medicare/Medicaid. * Illegal immigrants will NOT be included in any of this. They won't even be allowed to buy insurance in the exchanges. * Insurance companies get more regulation... First and foremost, they won't be able to deny people for existing conditions. * Starting in 2014, everyone who doesn't have health insurance (With some exceptions for low-income families) will be subject to an annual fine. * This won't be putting us further into debt. It will actually REDUCE the deficit by ~$140 billion over the next decade.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Illegal immigrants will NOT be included in any of this. They won't even be allowed to buy insurance in the exchanges.
I don't believe that is correct. They won't be eligible for subsidies, but they can still buy insurance.
Not unless CBS is completely wrong... From the article linked in the original post: "Illegal immigrants will not be allowed to buy health insurance in the exchanges -- even if they pay completely with their own money."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
So if the dems claim it
It's the non-partisan CBO that says that HCR will reduce the deficit.
CBO is constrained to calculate costs within Congressional guidelines, whether Congress is dem or rep controlled. From the CBO Chief's blog[^] He says that if you count medicaid/medicare income now as 'reducing the deficit', you still have to spend it again, later. So it reduces the current deficit by making our children pay it. While it does calculate as reduced deficit in the CBO projections, it is still added national debt. We can spend like this forever! Never call it a deficit, but still add it to the debt. In fact, we have been doing this for years. The government owes the Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security accounts well over 100 TRILLION dollars in collected funds that have been spent, and in shortfalls in payments obligated to be paid to recipients, according to the Social Security and Medicare Trustees. Over 89 Trillion is owed to Madicare, and this is adding an additional half trillion over projected increases. Sounds pretty deficit neutral to me. :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.